Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Recent Comments

Prev  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Next

Comments 1251 to 1300:

  1. At a glance - The tricks employed by the flawed OISM Petition Project to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change

    "How the OISM Petition Project casts doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change......Do you think that a lot of scientists reject the idea that human-caused carbon emissions are responsible for climate change - and is that because you once read about a petition signed by them to that effect? If the answer is yes, then this is for you."

    It is well known that plenty of people only read the headline or first paragraph, or half  of articles, and here you are stating in the headline that a petition casts doubt on the consensus on climate change, and the very first paragraph states that lots of scientists reject that human emissions cause climate change. With not even a  mention of how flawed the oregon petiton was in the first paragraph.

    Is this the impression you wanted to leave those readers with? It looks self defeating to me. 

  2. At a glance - The tricks employed by the flawed OISM Petition Project to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change

    Whenever these kinds of petitions come up. I always like to mention the National Center for Science Education's Project Steve. Although targeted at similar petitions related to evolution/creation science, it is equally applicable here. From their preamble:

    NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."

    Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

    Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend.

    We'd like to think that after Project Steve, we'll have seen the last of bogus "scientists doubting evolution" lists, but it's probably too much to ask. We hope that when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, "How many Steves are on your list!?"

    Even more tongue-in-cheek was when a federal political party in Canada was proposing a process where a referendum could be forced if a group could get 3% of the electorate to sign a petition. The leader's name was Stockwell Day, and a comedy show gathered names on a petition asking Stockwell Day to change his name to Doris Day. (Yes, they got enough signatures. No, he did not change his name.)

  3. At a glance - The tricks employed by the flawed OISM Petition Project to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change

    Re #1 - a very good geologist colleague of mine totally fell for the petition, mainly because I guess he was politically very conservative and the very notion of global warming did not fit with his worldview. I soon realised good scientists can let politics get in the way of trusting other scientific disciplines to have the same rigour as one's own. In a sense, I learned an important lesson right there.

  4. A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

    Gil @ 1:

    Who is "he"? Patrick Frank? Can you specify in which part of his article he makes this reference?

  5. At a glance - The tricks employed by the flawed OISM Petition Project to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change

    I suspect that many of the OISM signers have passed away over the past 25 years. The petition is now an irrelevant historical artifact. 

  6. A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

    You cannot validate science with marketing, nor marketing with scientific processes. In this article there is a lot of taking something hot in one hand as proof the other hand is not cold. A lot of selling going on here. 


    Moderator Response:

    [BL] - Contents snipped. This is a return of a previously-banned user, using a new name, which is strictly prohibited by the Comments Policy.

  7. A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

    He lost me when he called nominal thermometer precision with accuracy. Maybe it was a typo, but such an elementary mistake really takes a toll on any presumed ethos the author may have wanted to project. 

  8. At a glance - The tricks employed by the flawed OISM Petition Project to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change

    My Dad signed that petition.  He was a Crop Scientist.  I'm sure he meant well, but 'damage done'.  How hard is it to sign your name?  I took two terms of Atmospheric Physics.  For a few months I was working to get a PhD in climatology, but I later left to get a Masters in Mechanical Engineering.  Did I sign any petitions?  Have I signed any since?  Because I was lightyears more qualified to do so than my Father, who knew a lot about Plant Genetics, and a little about anything other than Plant Genetics.  But, regarding the Scientific opposition to AGW, that has rarely been a disqualifier.  As long as you 'wrote the book' on Plant Genetics, then you must certainly know everything there is to know about the subset of GeoPhysics called Atmospheric Science...

  9. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming

    Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on August 6, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @

  10. The difference between land surface temperature and surface air temperature

    Here's a telling chart: July 2023 would have been warmer than average against 1961-1990 climatology, but against 1991-2020 it was a bit cool:

  11. The difference between land surface temperature and surface air temperature

    And according to Trevor Harley, July 1922 was the coldest on record with an average temperature of 13.7C.

  12. The difference between land surface temperature and surface air temperature

    also re - #2, I just checked and in the UK, July 2023 had a mean temperature across the month of 14.9C, 0.3C below the average for the period 1991-2020. Ironically, June was the warmest UK June on record with a mean temperature of 15.8C, this being 2.5C higher than average. Note the mich wider margin by which the heat record was broken; July was only a bit sub-par (no record there).

  13. The difference between land surface temperature and surface air temperature

    re #2: As Eclectic points out, wildfires have occurred in the geologic record ever since land plants colonised the landmasses. Charcoal horizons in terrestrial sedimentary rocks provide the evidence. Dry lightning is a very obvious cause and is a key causal factor in many parts of the world today.

    Vegetation does not spontaneously combust but can become well-primed by prolonged hot rain-free conditions to become an inferno should a fire start from any cause.

    The UK has certainly had a below-average July but that's because it was stuck on the cold side of the jetstream for much of the month.

    Looking back through reanalysis charts, 'Cerberus' was a flabby anticyclone but nevertheless it caused northwards warm air advection from northern Africa, just as UK heatwaves involve warm air advection from southern Europe as a rule, hence the meteorological term, 'Spanish Plume'. In a warming world, the chances of such events causing even hotter conditions are obviously increased.

  14. PollutionMonster at 15:03 PM on 6 August 2023
    It's not urgent


    Thank you I found the quote, would have taken me a very long time to find on my own. I could only find a much lower number before. Going to argue with some deniers now. :)

  15. citizenschallenge at 13:38 PM on 6 August 2023
    The Cranky Uncle game can now also be played in Finnish!


    Keep up the good work.

  16. prove we are smart at 10:35 AM on 6 August 2023
    Skeptical Science New Research for Week #31 2023

    MA Rodger @2,

    Thanks for that reply, I agree entirely with your comments and the link you shared was especially informative, cheers Col.

  17. The difference between land surface temperature and surface air temperature

    Davz @2 ,

    You have many questions ~ but I would be grateful if you would clarify your second question.

    Your second question does not seem to make sense.  I assume that you are correct in that the ignition temperature of scrubland materials would be high (for instance, the wood-based material known as paper has an auto-ignition temperature above 200 degreesC ).   And climate range does not extend anywhere near 200 degreesC, or even 100 degreesC.

    And yet wildfires have occurred throughout pre-history, before humans & hominids, and even well before 1 million years BC.   So your "question" presents a paradox ~ wildfires cannot occur naturally . . . and yet wildfires have occurred naturally.

    Perhaps the paradox can be resolved by you expressing yourself more logically.  Were you perhaps meaning to say that climate favoring hotter drier days would make wildfires worse in extent & intensity . . . which would make sense ~ but that makes nonsense of your second question.

  18. The difference between land surface temperature and surface air temperature

    could the author kindly explain the role of the anti-cyclone known as Cerberus on the heat wave in southern Europe?  Could you also explain how wild fires were started by climate change as spontaneous combustion of scrubland normally takes place at a much higher temperature, temperatures beyond that of the climate, so how can wildfires be attributed to the climate?  Can you explain why the temperatures in Europe are now normal and have not been maintained and lastly why has the UK experienced the coldest July on record.  Events like these need explanation If they are going to be attributed to global warming.

  19. The difference between land surface temperature and surface air temperature

    "People who create and/or circulate such myths are denying plain reality."

    There's a lot of it about at the moment John! My own recent article on the creation and circulation of similar myths takes a look at some theory whilst also debunking some specific "skeptical" memes:

    By way of just one example, if you can spot the difference between these two graphs of Arctic sea ice extent you may well wonder why a certain "Steve Goddard" has been continuously blasting the former data at his flock of faithful followers rather than the latter?

    Events, dear Tony, events!

  20. Skeptical Science New Research for Week #31 2023

    prove we are smart @1,

    You ask "Is all if this video true?" The answer is 'No'.

    It is true that the sulphur emissions from shipping causes cloud formation. But the assertion that the absence of such emissions is the cause of the high 2023 Atlantic SSTs is a difficult one to accept.

    The annual June anomaly for such SSTs is plotted here in this Copernicus item on the heat waves, as is the daily year-on-year plot (as seen in the video @0.25). Note that we are not seeing a rise in SST through recent years as we would expect to see resulting from a lowering of sulphur pollution. This is, as the Copernicus item describes, primarily a weather-driven event. The contributions from GHG forcing and pollution are not the the immediate cause of the specacular temperature anomalies.

    And the assertion that we could through geoengineering cool the planet and reverse AGW is exceedingly naive. Significant cooling of the planet through geoengineering would come with unintended and very likely unwelcome climatic impacts. A better plan is to put all our efforts into reducing CO2 emissions and after that intentionally removing past emissions.

  21. prove we are smart at 20:15 PM on 5 August 2023
    Skeptical Science New Research for Week #31 2023

    Just a few questions for the scientists here:

    Is all of this video true?

    Do ocean vessils create "sea tracks" making clouds that shade out the ocean more than the dust blowing off-shore from the Sahara Desert often does?

    Can it be simply done to seed the ocean air with air-blast sea-water droplets when atmospheric conditions are suitable and make clouds bigger to create shade and should it be done? Just wondering..

  22. It's not urgent

    PM @39 ,

    Nordhaus's comments are found in the online Washington Post, in an interview with Steven Mufson on 14th June 2021.

    About halfway down the rather short interview.   To me, Nordhaus seems very reasonable ~ apart from his obliviousness to the vast misery consequent on a 3 or 4 degree warmer world.   He also opines that "Carbon Price" would sound much better than "Carbon Tax" . . . so yes, I think he is very aware of the delicate sensibilities  of many of his American audience!

  23. PollutionMonster at 15:49 PM on 4 August 2023
    It's not urgent

    Eclectic @38

    You've made some interesting points. One week I really dug in and was arguing for 8 hours + a day with deniers, did not make me happy. Do you have a source for the $100 per ton tax on carbon emissions from Nordhaus? I've searched and searched but could not find. Thank you.

  24. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #30

    Nigelj - 44.304% number was the same as yours (though I was rounding ) ..

    Thats what I like about cross checking the data in a dispassionate manner against actual source data so the I can honestly evaluate the factual evidence without being swayed by activists talking points.  


    for example Michael makes mention of Hydro  to cover the shortages, though there is no Hydro in the ercot grid, nor is the geography  or water storage needs compatable with utilizing hydro.  

    Michael also makes mention of the battery storage such as being used in the De Cordova plant near grandbury with 260mw battery storage,  though that battery storage is only good for 1 hour at full usage.  The 260mw is comparable to the plant hourly capacity, so it the plant shuts down, the backup power is only good for 1 hour ( longer if shut down occurs in non peak season)  The backup power is used to reduce the  peaking power requirement , thus is nearly fully discharged daily during the summer.  


  25. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #30

    Michael - Nigrelj partially answered your question on how to drill into the EIA data

    using the link - right side column "chart options"

    Chose frequency - daily or hourly

    Date range type - choose custom

    Number of days - less than 30 days will provide the hourly - longer than 30 will only display daily

    Select balancing authority - click on any grid - ERCOT/ MISO / PJM / SWPP or any other grid.

    Hope that helps you learning how to navigate the real time source data.

    A baseball player can look at the box score printed in the sports section of the newspaper (on line these days)  and tell you what happened every inning. Same thing with the EIA electric generation by source report. Once you learn how to read the source data, you will have a greatly improved grasp of what is actually happening, and far less easily fooled by the activists representations. Hope that helps.

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Inflammatory snipped.  Do better.

  26. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #30

    Regarding the ERCOT grid controversy being discussed. I had a look at the EIA page with the interractive graph. I plugged in the Texas ERCOT grid for 28 June - 29 June 2023. (you do this under the select balancing authority / region and then the date selection panel). I discovered you can then hover the arrow over the point on the  graph you want and the data appears.

    The best case for renewables plus nuclear power was on 28 June (although both days were very similar). I got the following numbers: wind + solar + nuclear 35,562 mwhr and for Gas + coal 43,472 mwhr. This is 44.304 % for wind + solar+ nuclear (using an online percentage calculator that would only let me enter simple numbers 35 and 43 but this is useful enough) so this does seem to roughly confirm David Accts result.

    However I'm wary of such things. Im just reading things off a web page. Im not an electrical engineer, and its not clear how the people in the article arrived at their numbers. Although all the raw data seems to be on the EIA page there is the perrenial problem of potentially comparing apples and oranges.

    And 44.304% is still a very credible result. And obviously it should be noted that wind and solar are still only a smaller component of the grid relative to fossil fuels.

  27. michael sweet at 03:52 AM on 4 August 2023
    2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #30

    I looked at your EIA link (sorry I missed it before).  I could not figure out how to get data for ERCOT from it.  I noticed that the lowest times for wind were allways durig the day when the production of solar was high.  At night demand is much lower.  WIth more wind and solar buildout that should continue to be benificial.  

    Hydro can be used to generate power at times when wind and solar are low.  In the cases you mention, hydro could probably cover most or all of the shortages at night.  Since they are also installing battery storage in ERCOT, as well as a lot more solar, they should be covered.

    Scientists who study power systems have all come to the conclusion that renewable energy will be able to handle all power all the time with higher reliability than current fossil systems.  You are simply making up your own claims without any analysis to support your incorrect conclusions.  I have already provided you links to support this claim but you apparently have not read them.

  28. Philippe Chantreau at 03:00 AM on 4 August 2023
    Wildfires are not caused by global warming

    Bob makes a interesting point above by bringing the difference between grasslands fires and forest fires, and how they play in the decrease of global area burned.

    As Bob pointed above, said decrease is pretty much entirely due to the lower area of savannah and grasslands burned. These environments have a long relationship to fire and are very well adapted to it, with grass species in fact relying on it for their life cycle. The carbon cycling from grassland fires is a short term one that has always been present in the background of the natural global carbon cycle. The amount of CO2 released per unit of surface burned is limited, since grasslands store the vast majority of their carbon underground, and quickly regenerate the above ground part that is lost in fires.

    Forest fires, especially the ones affecting old growth forest are an entirely different beast. The amount of CO2 generated by unit of surface is much higher for forested lands. Zheng et al (2021) show that the CO2 released by forest fires essentially compensates for the decrease in total area burned provided by the decline in grassland fires. The result is a "quasi stable" amount of CO2 generated by wildfires. It would not be surprising if this changed with more years like this one has been in Canada and Siberia.

  29. michael sweet at 02:12 AM on 4 August 2023
    2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #30


    Can you provide a link to where you say you found data that contradicts the CNN article?  A claim without a link is not worth much.  I note that even if renewables provided "only " 45% of total electricity that renewable energy was what kept the lights on in Texas the last two months. 

    SInce renewables have only been the cheapest electricity for about 5 years I would say they are doing great!!

  30. It's not urgent

    PollutionMonster @37 , yes the economist William Nordhaus is an interesting case.

    Climate science deniers love him since he seems unconcerned about a 3 or 4 degree rise in global temperature . . . because, in his estimation, the vastly higher temperature will have no adverse effect on "output" (aka Gross Domestic Product ~ GDP being the heart & soul of economists' thinking).   And undoubtably Nordhaus is correct in his projections, for we all know that the "dismal science" of economics has an impeccable track record of long-term accuracy . . . and it is also the Be-all & End-all of measurement of human happiness (and of all other aspects of the natural world).

    But putting that minor point aside, the Denialists are slightly less happy that Nordhaus has suggested a $100-per-ton tax on carbon emissions ( I am unsure, but presume he means tax on tonnage of CO2 rather than tonnage of elemental carbon emitted ).

    As per usual, Denialists feel entitled to cherry-pick from the sayings of any prominent scientist or public figure, in order to support themselves.

    For arguing online ~ no, it is not a waste of your time, since your comments will be seen by "undecided" fence-sitters.  No, your arguments won't & can't change the minds of the hard-core intransigent Denialists (who are usually political extremists that are basically uninterested in the actual science or the actual happiness of other people).   But your activity will encourage decent sensible people.

    Only keep arguing so long as you find it fun/entertaining.  Refresh yourself with lots of walking & greenery & open skies . . . plus good company and other interests in life.  But I am sure you already know that is how Life should be lived.

  31. PollutionMonster at 12:08 PM on 3 August 2023
    It's not urgent

    I agree that it can be fun entertainment for awhile. Yet, after awhile it just becomes exhausting trying to keep up with a denier constantly changing topics only to repeat as in your example with the anti-vaxx.

    MA Rodger said in #27 that it was still nesscary to argue with deniers, do you agree? Or am I wasting my time arguing online?

    What about William Nordhaus? Deniers like to reference him. Saying that we should aim for 3.5C change and that 1.5-2C is infeasible if not impossible by 2100. Thank you in advance.

  32. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #30

    Below is an except of the statement in the CNN article linked to by michael sweet.  

    "And as the state struggled through an early heatwave in June, non-fossil fuel power including renewables and nuclear made up 55% of total generation on June 28 and 29 and close to 50% of the power needed during the evening peak, according to statistics from the federal Energy Information Administration."


    I Went to the EIA electric generation by source, dialed into the ERCOT grid and compared the actual data against the claimed data in the article ( basic due diligence).  At best , Wind solar and Nuclear only got to 45% of total  electric generation  and they article included Nuclear which is generally not considered a renewable.  


    As I have previously stated multiple times, cross check the claims against the actual source data to prevent being fooled. 

  33. CO2 effect is saturated

    [ If the Moderator will allow a brief off-topic musing, I promise a sort of return in my concluding paragraph. ]

    As a complete tyro in the world of probabilistic AI language generative models, I picture ChatGPT as the analogy of a Zillion monkeys tapping away at a Zillion typewriters . . . and eventually (which is actually a millisecond) out comes something speciously good.  The product is sometimes Booker Prize standard; sometimes merely quite presentable; sometimes a diamond but deeply flawed when examined closely; and sometimes there is an Einsteinian Pearl of inventiveness (if the reader has the wit to pick it up and run with it).   But always, the winning monkey has no real knowledge of what he has produced.   Play-It-Again-Sam . . . and a millisecond later, the new winning monkey gives you a somewhat different product.   ~In a decade's time, will the current language AI become so refined as to filter out its own fabrications & nonsenses?  Probably yes...

    On-topic  ~ another analogy is the brain of the climate-science-denier, whose Motivated Reasoning (produced by a Zillion monkey neurons) keeps coming out with flawed presentations, in various repetitions.   Monkeys, or Dragons?

  34. Rob Honeycutt at 04:49 AM on 3 August 2023
    CO2 effect is saturated

    I've played around with ChatGPT and found that it has a tendency to make sh*t up. When you push further it will acknowledge that it is merely a natural language generator. It doesn't have the capacity to review and verify the accuracy of its output. It's just very good at sounding authoritative. But, to its credit, it will tell you not to rely on its statements and to engage experts in the field to verify any facts.

  35. CO2 effect is saturated

    Eclectic @705,

    If the jibberish presented @704 is an output from ChatGPT, or some similar machine learning engine, then the technology is being greatly over-hyped.

    I don't see that the CO2 absorption/emission spectrum "approaches a blackbody" spectrum at high concentration or density. (Concentration and density seem to be confused in the #704 account.) N2 & O2 are transparent to IR so they have no spectra (although this is indeed "constant over the IR range"). There are more bands of the spectrum absorbed by atmospheric CO2, not just at 15 micron. And up-welling IR is not restricted to "altitudes of only a few hundred meters" as CO2 emits as well as absorbs.

  36. CO2 effect is saturated

    Welcome back, DragonsHeads / DragonHeads / DragonSeed / DragonTeeth...    It appears you have enlisted the aid of ChatGPT or Bard or other Artificial Intelligence "large language models", to construct your post #704.

    ChatGPT etcetera typically produce a lot of words, with an initial semblance of meaning . . . but on closer examination, the words can often fail to show a true connection with reality ~ and that is the case here.  DragonChat, you are spouting nonsense.  Come back in 2030, in your seventh iteration !   [ Meanwhile, you might enjoy exercising yourself at the website WattsUpWithThat  ;-)   ]


    Moderator ~ you are too quick on the draw !

  37. CO2 effect is saturated

    Eclectic and Moderators

    If you would quit being so arrogant and ban-happy, you might just learn a little something on subject you are talking about. From your comments, analogies, and "rebuttals" on the CO2 greenhouse effect saturation issue, I would place your knowledge of spectroscopy somewhere between lacking and non-existent! Since all GHGs, including CO2, are trace gases, their spectra are much closer to that of single molecules than blackbodies. As the concentration of such a gas increases, however, the individual spectral lines are broadened into bands. If the density is further increased, those bands eventually overlap each other and are merged into a more or less continuous spectrum. Finally, in the extremely high density limit, the spectrum approaches a blackbody and it actually makes sense to talk about a temperature and pressure of the gas.

    Now, the spectra of the main atmospheric gases N2 and O2 can be approximated with blackbody curves since they are of sufficiently high concentration. Also, the absorption coefficients can be regarded as roughly constant over the IR range. This is not the case, however, for CO2 nor any of the GHGs since these are trace gases. For the GHGs, we must determine an absorption coefficient for each spectral band. In the case of CO2, the important band for the GHE is the 2 micron band at a 15 micron wavelength. All other bands are either too weak or too far away from the peak of the upwelling IR spectrum. Therefore, CO2 can affect temperature only by absorbing radiation within this particular band. This is a strong absorption, however, so radiation within this band of the upwelling thermal energy is depleted at altitudes of only a few hundred meters. Above that, CO2 can absorb no more upwelling energy regardless of its concentration. Now, there is still upward-bound thermal energy, but not within the 15 micron band.  That energy would most likely be absorbed by H2O vapor or escape to outer space.

    Unfortunately, however, every purported rebuttal to CO2 GHE saturation in this Climate Myth page has, one way or another, involved the assumption of a single absorption coefficient for CO2 which applies for the entire IR spectrum. Simply put, this is incorrect and results in gross over-estimations of the amount of heat energy absorbed by CO2.

    In summary, your case against CO2 GHE saturation wouldn't stand up under the scrutiny of a good student.

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] You can lead a horse to water...

  38. Rob Honeycutt at 08:20 AM on 2 August 2023
    CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration

    Dave... "If either of you gentlemen (or anyone else) find another error, or any misleading information, on my site, I will be grateful if you bring them to my attention."

    I think you don't grasp that there is no reason for anyone to spend any time on your site at all. It is a multi-year Gish gallop. And here, in your posting efforts on SkS, you've demonstrated a stark unwillingness to update or alter your position on many errors pointed out by others. 

  39. Rob Honeycutt at 08:15 AM on 2 August 2023
    CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration

    Dave, I did not infer that you were doing it out of a monetary motivation. "Pro bono" would also be a poor selection of words since that generally refers to legal work done for free to benefit people of lower income. Your site is, as far as I can see, merely a non-expert pretending to be an expert and seeking validation in that effort.

    Your site could potentially be useful if you would submit to some form of review process by people who are genuine experts in the fields you're commenting on. Short of that you're just promoting misinformation based in your personal ignorances.

  40. CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration

    Thank you, Eclectic, for bringing the dead Ed Berry link to my attention! If have corrected it. (It appears that he reorganized his site.)

    Rob, I guess you didn't notice that my site is not monetized. So "generating traffic" is of no use to me. It's a purely pro bono project. I merely hope that it is useful to someone.

    If either of you gentlemen (or anyone else) find another error, or any misleading information, on my site, I will be grateful if you bring them to my attention. Even punctuation or spelling errors will earn my gratitude.

    My full contact info is on my site, so please contact me directly, if you find an error. I visit this site only sporadically, so if you direct a comment to me here I might not notice it.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Empirical evidence here suggests that you are unwilling to follow simple instructions to post where things are on topic, and unwilling to to accept the corrections to errors that  you post here.

    When you say "if you find an error. I visit this site only sporadically, so if you direct a comment to me here I might not notice it.", this tells us that you are not here to engage in honest discussion. People that comment here are expected to follow the conversation and respond to criticism. As such, your postings are no longer welcome.


  41. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #30

    Always a good idea to cross check the story line against the raw source data so that you arent fooled by an activists story line. The raw real time source data from the Energy information administration paints a much more complete picture. See the attached link. One hand, wind and solar contributed considerable electric production to the ercot grid. On the other hand there were two periods starting July 1 lasting approximately 64 hours and a second period starting July 22 lasting approximately 64 hours in which electric production from wind was less than 20% of normal and less than 5% for several hours. These two periods were not confined to ERCOT , but were across nearly the entire north american continent. The MISO grid lost more than 80% electric generation for 9 day period.

    It was during those two periods where the grid was at the highest risk of failure and in which the fossil fuel plants prevented the collapse of the grid. Always best to cross check against actual real time source data.


  42. CO2 effect is saturated

    Moderator:  Bob, thanks ~ the indications were indeed strong.

    While there is some entertainment value in replying to those delusional puppets . . . nevertheless I am quite happy for my own posts (including this) to be deleted from this thread.   Maybe after a 24 or 48 hour delay, in order to allow a wider viewing of the shenanigans?

  43. CO2 effect is saturated

    DragonHeads @700 and @701 ,

    You are right that the bucket-of-water analogy is ugly & unlikable (IMO).

    But you are wrong about the GreenHouse Effect [GHE].  Where do you get the idea that the GHE regarding CO2 is concerned only with the 15 micron IR emission from the surface or near surface [say, at the 2 meter height] ???

    Bobhisey [and here I am hoping I am not treading on the toes of Present Company ] is basically & stubbornly clueless about GHE.

    The GHE involves the whole planet ~ which includes the full depth of the atmosphere.   Energy in & energy out, at the so-called Top Of Atmosphere [TOA].   Unfortunately, the TOA term is a tad misleading (just as is the GHE term) . . . but if you take the trouble to think all these climate concepts through, then it becomes "bleeding obvious" that the scientists are correct.

    DragonHeads, please slow yourself down ~ and clarify where you think the atmospheric physicists are wrong.  ( And perhaps it might be best to assure sensitive readers that no Sky Dragon Slayers  have been harmed in your explanation. )

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] There are strong indications that Dragonheads is yet another sock puppet of a large collection of previously-banned users. As this is a violation of the Comments Policy, this user will not be participating any more.


  44. CO2 effect is saturated

    Eclectic @442

    I'm afraid bobhisey is correct in the statement that no 14-16 micron radiation leaves the earth — at least not from its surface.  Due to the strong absorption of such radiation by CO2, the intensity of this band (radiating from the surface) is insignificant at the altitude of orbiting satellites.  Therefore, any measurements of these wavelengths taken aboard satellites fall into the category of upper atmospheric and space physics.  From what I have read, this radiation from space appears somewhat as a blackbody at temperature 220 deg. K.  Anyway, it has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect at lower altitudes.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL} I'm afraid that you make the same basic error that bobhisey and many other people commenting on this thread have made. At least you add the "not from its surface" clause, but you completely ignore the well-known and observed fact that the lower atmosphere that is absorbing IR radiation in those wavelengths is also emitting it in those wavelengths.. as a result, measurements of upwelling IR radiation in those wavelengths always shows a continuous stream, from the surface up to the top of the atmosphere.


  45. CO2 effect is saturated

    I reviewed your Basic Rebuttal to CO2 greenhouse effect saturation, and believe that the author's analogy with the buckets of water is incomplete and misleading.  If I understand this analogy, it is comparing the water with heat energy, the bucket with the atmosphere, and the hole in the bucket corresponds to a path for the heat energy to reach outer space. Finally, the plug for the hole corresponds to the CO2 greenhouse effect. CO2, however, can absorb (or block) IR radiation only within a narrow band at a 15 micron wavelength, which is a small fraction of the total IR energy going into space.  In order to complete the analogy, one would need to blow a massive hole in the other side of the bucket to allow for IR energy to escape at other wavelengths.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Should you wish to inform yourself (which seems highly unlikely), you should read more about the bucket analogy on this thread.

    You may also wish to acquaint yourself with the definition of "analogy". An analogy is not typically expected to be a full model of an entire system - just a simple way of explaining part of it:


    A relationship of resemblance or equivalence between two situations, people, or objects, especially when used as a basis for explanation or extrapolation

  46. CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration

    Rob H ~ never would I have thought you had such a cynical streak.

    And yes, DaveBurton should self-cancel his website, and start off with a clean sheet, correcting all the errors & misleading information.

  47. Rob Honeycutt at 07:37 AM on 1 August 2023
    CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration

    Somehow I get the sense Dave's merely trying to generate traffic for his website. These posts are starting to border on spam.

  48. CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration

    Daveburton @20 ,

    thank you for supplying that link < /Skrable2022/ > to some criticisms of the Skrable et al paper.   And the criticisms are scathing.

    Very evidently, the Skrable paper should have been retracted.


    btw, Dave, in the list of links shown at your website, the second-to-last one (to EdBerry) comes up as Page Not Found.   #But please do not bother to correct that, since Ed Berry is mostly a complete waste of readers' time.

  49. CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration

    If anyone doubts that Skrable et al got it wrong, they should read the five published responses to it. They're devastating.

    I have the Skrable, Chabot & French paper, as well as the five "comment on" response papers which Health Physics published, Skrable's replies to the responses, Skrable's later letter & paper, a "comments on" response to that one by Dr. David E. Andrews, and Skrable's response to that, all on my site, here:

    My initial motivation for putting the responses on my site was to make them available, to debunk the errors in Skrable's paper, since Health Physics had paywalled all but the first page of each "comment-on" response. (I obtained the responses, in some cases, by contacting their authors.)

    Fortunately, Health Physics subsequently un-paywalled them. But it's still handy to have all that material together, in one place.

    I did notice a small problem with this article. The red trace in Figure 1 is labeled "Total CO2 Emissions (Total amount of CO2 emitted by humans)." But it is not actually the total amount, since it excluldes CO2 from land use changes (forest clearing, swamp draining, etc.).

    I don't have a problem with that choice, since fossil carbon emissions are known with reasonable accuracy, and land use change emissions are not. However, a better label for the red trace would be "Total fossil CO2 Emissions (Total amount of CO2 released by burning fossil fuels and making cement)."

    Another problem is that the graph appears to end with CDIAC's 2013 emission data. Newer data from multiple sources can be found here:

  50. It's not urgent

    PollutionMonster ~ you being able to argue with 3 Denialists, sounds like it could be fun entertainment for you (provided they come up with halfway-decent points for consideration).

    But all too often, the Denialists are like Anti-vaxxers.  When you show evidence of enormous benefit of vaccines (and the rareness of adverse effects) . . . then the Anti-vaxxers simply launch into a perpetual cycle of: Fatal side-effects > Mercury poisoning > Autism > Individual freedom > Conspiracy theories > Financial corruption > and back to vaccines causing millions of deaths / millions of cases of gross & permanent sabotage of the human immune system, and so on.

    PollutionMonster  ~ in over 10 years of searching, I have never come across a valid argument that shows the basic mainstream climate to be wrong.  If you yourself encounter a valid scientific argument that shows "it's not urgent we act now on climate change" . . . then this thread here might be a good place to publicize it.  (Sadly, all I come across is the vague & half-truthful rhetoric of the occasional person like Dr Judith Curry . . . or the even vaguer & only-slightly-truthful Mr Nicolas Loris of your example above.)

Prev  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Next

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us